EDUCATIONAL THEORY最新文献

Digital technologies are changing our understanding of ethical emulation. In this article, Matthew Dennis proposes that some social media technologies have given rise to a strikingly new set of ethical ideals, often concerned with the ideal of self-cultivation. While there is relatively little philosophical discussion of these kinds of ideals, Dennis suggests that scrutiny of Friedrich Nietzsche's ethical philosophy offers a guiding account of why the ideal of self-directed character change is important. He concludes by speculating on how the digital affordances of social media technologies will change the way in which ethical exemplars influence future generations.

Examining the still underexplored elements in educational theorist Paulo Freire's work, this essay begins from his claim that problem-posing pedagogy works as a “kind of psychoanalysis.” Situating Freire between the critical philosophical and psychoanalytic traditions, Alex Armonda offers a new reading of the problem-posing dialectic, mapping parallels between Freirean pedagogy and psychoanalysis on the nature of the subject/object relation, while thinking new connections across the philosophical-analytical divide on questions of being, subjectivity, and politics. First, he discusses the onto-epistemic specificity of “the human” in Freire and situates it in relation to the split subject of the unconscious in Lacanian psychoanalysis. Second, he presents the subject/object encounter in Freire, demonstrating that a similar notion of the unconscious informs Freire's account and plays a central role in his understanding of the banking and problem-posing pedagogical experiences. Advancing a Lacanian reading of the problem-posing encounter, Armonda concludes by reflecting on key differences between the dialectical-materialist and psychoanalytical interpretations of Freire, and how the latter opens new perspectives on “reality” as an inconsistent space of contest, generating alternative ways of conceiving political subjectivity and the possibility of radical social transformation in the present.

In this paper, Tony Iantosca situates the academic integrity policies of US colleges and universities, as well as student plagiarism, in biopolitical frameworks. By examining the aporias that result from student plagiarism in the context of neoliberal knowledge production, which produces and depends upon individualized, skills-bearing students, Iantosca interrogates what educators can learn philosophically and pedagogically from the mutual misrecognition that occurs between institutional policy and the transgressing student. He frames this discussion with Michel Foucault's classic work on biopolitics as well as Roberto Esposito's immunitary paradigm in order to examine the implications of student illegibility for what Bernard Stiegler has called education's trans-individuating potential. The argument that emerges is that student plagiarism has multiple, contradictory significances that can nonetheless teach educators important lessons about property and individualism, and these lessons must be retained as we reinitiate, rather than punish, plagiarizing students. Iantosca then closes the paper with a brief consideration of the pedagogical implications of this argument.

In this paper, Caitlin Murphy Brust and Rebecca Taylor examine the responsibilities of college educators to resist conditions of epistemic injustice within their institutions. Pedagogy alone cannot bring about epistemic justice in higher education, for no individual epistemic agent can single-handedly transform their epistemic environment. The roots of such injustices are structural and thus require structural interventions. However, college educators do retain some agency to engage in epistemic resistance. Brust and Taylor argue that they can and should take steps to foster just relations within the epistemic communities of their classrooms — calling for pedagogy that both recognizes the unjust features of the broader epistemic environment and responds to the unique forms of epistemic injustice that manifest in the classroom, with particular attention to seminar-style courses.

How can educators create space for students to practice making the worlds we are trying to collectively build? Inspired by genealogies that are grounded in and emerge from social movements, this paper uplifts the possibilities, tensions, and new questions that emerge when we take seriously the role of our classroom pedagogies. The authors offer a reflexive, methodological approach that pushes against the theory/practice divide and that stays with the importance of inhabiting theory through practice. They reflect on the role their classroom pedagogies in enacting their commitments to justice, organizing their offerings around the following themes: (1) Enter, or how their learnings from previous teaching experiences shape praxis through the pauses, recalibrations, and persistent questions they provoke; (2) how they Open and create space in their classrooms through rituals and routines, and toward what ends; and finally, (3) how they aim to Build with their students within and beyond the bounds of the classroom. The authors share the guiding questions that prompted these reflections, as well as the echoes across their offerings, inviting readers to reflect on their own teaching practice in community.

This article explores the darker side of appeals to justice and social justice within liberal settings, particularly the US academy, where these terms are frequently mobilized to counter decolonial knowledge formations and aspirations. The authors draw from Frantz Fanon's critique of justice in colonial settings to demonstrate ways in which the coloniality of justice appears in the context of debates regarding the design and implementation of an Ethnic Studies requirement at the California State University and the California Community College Systems. They view the decolonial pedagogy and epistemology of Ethnic Studies as an important dimension of the search for decolonial justice.

The escalating planetary crises of human-induced climate change, the depletion of natural resources, and declining biodiversity call for urgent actions to be taken at all levels of society and by the global community. The current political strategy for a sustainable future that emphasizes economic and technological progress is insufficient to bring about the change required; an educational approach based on identities, values, ethics, and new worldviews is also needed. In this article Arto O. Salonen and his coauthors consider the kind of pedagogy that could support a transformation of the human conception of reality into a form that both recognizes the connections and interactions between people, society, and the planet, and imparts an ethical orientation to action that strengthens the health and integrity of all entities. A theory of planetary social pedagogy (PSP) is based on traditional social pedagogy, which provides a theoretical framework for formal, nonformal, and informal education. PSP aims at building a deep holistic understanding of the relationship between the individual, society, and Earth by integrating the fragmented human conception and experience of reality by uniting the three dimensions of a social-ecological worldview: spatial, temporal, and ethical. Moreover, PSP is a cyclical learning process that alternates between cognitive, metacognitive, and epistemic levels of learning. The ultimate goal of using PSP is to lay the foundation for a fundamental transformation of the ideals, values, and culture that shape human behavior in ways necessary for securing a sustainable future.

This paper goes beyond — transcends — “pedagogy as justice,” recognizing that justice, particularly in these present times, may not be enough. Its wager is with pedagogies of and for life; pedagogies that plant and cultivate, that push and enable other modes of living, despite the capitalist-modern-colonial-racist system, beyond the system, and in the system's margins, borders, fissures, and cracks. These pedagogies, as Catherine Walsh argues here, are necessarily tied to and constitutive of decolonial(izing) praxis, a praxis that, while not negating justice, takes us beyond it. The argument here is for the pedagogical-praxistical work being done now, and yet to be done; the actional thought, thoughtful action, and ongoing creation and construction of an otherwise for existence, for dignity, and for life in these times of multiple entwined pandemic-viruses, including capitalist greed, systemic racism, heteropatriarchy, and existential-territorial dispossession in which COVID is/was one more thread of the entwine.

This essay explains how, from the theoretical perspective of Basil Bernstein's three “conditions for democracy,” the current pedagogy of artificially intelligent personalized learning seems inadequate. Building on Bernstein's comprehensive work and more recent research concerned with personalized education, Natalia Kucirkova and Sandra Leaton Gray suggest three principles for advancing personalized education and artificial intelligence (AI). They argue that if AI is to reach its full potential in terms of promoting children's identity as democratic citizens, its pedagogy must go beyond monitoring the technological progression of personalized provision of knowledge. It needs to pay more careful attention to the democratic impact of data-driven systems. Kucirkova and Leaton Gray propose a framework to distinguish the value of personalized learning in relation to pluralization and to guide educational researchers and practitioners in its application to socially just classrooms.

Nassim Noroozi proposes a juxtaposition of pedagogy with and a characterization of it as justice. The term pedagogical here is not limited to “the educational,” nor is pedagogy limited to the methods of teaching. At the same time, the term justice will not be framed in terms of liberal conceptual grounds. Noroozi defines pedagogy as an arrangement of meaning so that it becomes impossible not to see injustice. Noroozi argues that “pedagogy-as-justice” concerns itself with exposing injustice in transformative ways, and as such it is an ethical undertaking. She explores how philosophizing for struggle is inherently pedagogical and, because of our perception of “the pedagogical,” how it is inherently transformative. Furthermore, she argues that seeing pedagogy as justice will consequentially deem “the arrangements of meanings to engage others in the issues pertaining to injustice” as equally important to writing or thinking about those struggles. To illustrate the above points, Noroozi analyzes a case of public philosophical engagement against war. By expanding on this case, she proposes some central attributes of pedagogy-as-justice, namely its preoccupation with grounding abstract and anonymous concepts in their contested historical realities; its commitment to wrestling with an “opacity of concepts” or with “dishonest reasonings” that end up promoting suffering and injustice; and its recognition of the precarities inherent in undertaking pedagogy-as-justice. Noroozi traces a genealogy of the concept of pedagogy-as-justice going back to Socratic public philosophical engagements.